So he's a writer. All righty then… What I'm seeing is, he guided the construction of an evocative face, and then told an effective story about it, and THEN put

So he's a writer. All righty then… What I'm seeing is, he guided the construction of an evocative face, and then told an effective story about it, and THEN put it forth. It looks like he habitually adds 'fictional story' to the blurb. The guy is a writer. If his stuff is taking off (or was), it's on the strength of his characterization, and that's perfectly legitimate. It might also be taking advantage of a hidden strength of AI: it's only us, it's only a mass-appeal take that much like ChatGPT goes for common knowledge and isn't interested in truth or novelty, and that is a way to hit an artistic mass audience with something they respond to. The guy's a writer with a reasonably good artist's eye and the ability to see a resonant character, perhaps not a particularly deep one. There's gonna be lots more of this and one thing you'll eventually see is that these folks are as interchangeable as the AI works they produce. If you don't like him there will be another. There will also be people using the technology to carve out a more interesting spot for themselves that will NOT hit the mainstream, because they're not pandering half as much. But for every one of them there will be 99 folks with computers and a decent eye, who hit much bigger because their pandering is perfectly sincere. What they like is typical and common, and they'll go for the low hanging tropes and hit it really big by sincerely pursuing unambitious goals with some degree of skill and tenacity. Worked for JK Rowling.